816 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. XXXIII. No. 856 



Elsewhere real progress is found in the direc- 

 tion of simplification, which makes for con- 

 venience, saves time, and meets the limitations 

 of memory by instituting more concise meth- 

 ods of making records. Does the law that 

 inheres in nomenclature differ so much from 

 that which obtains in all other vast accumula- 

 tions of facts ? If so, let us have a statement 

 of it, so that we may, by understanding it, 

 attain to acquiescence in the inevitable. 



James G. Needham 

 Cornell Univeesitt 



' on evidence op soma influence on offspring 

 from engrafted ovarian tissue 



To THE Editor of Science: In publication 

 No. 144 of the Carnegie Institution of Wash- 

 ington entitled, " On Germinal Transplanta- 

 tion in Vertebrates," by Castle and Phillips, 

 issued March 14, 1911, an attempt is made to 

 overthrow my experiments on transplantation 

 of ovaries in fowls,' and Magnus's' experi- 

 ments of similar character on rabbits, and to 

 establish a claim to priority in the demonstra- 

 tion that offspring may result from trans- 

 planted ovaries; and the effect, if any, of 

 soma influence on such offspring. Therefore, 

 I feel it incumbent to call attention briefly 

 to certain of the statements in order that no 

 misunderstanding may result. Since my 

 papers with the experiments are readily avail- 

 able, I shall avoid all unnecessary repetition. 



In a word, the situation is as follows: 



^" Results of Eemoval and Transplantation of 

 Ovaries in Chickens, ' ' presented before the Amer- 

 ican Physiological Society in connection with the 

 seventh meeting of the Congress of American 

 Physicians and Surgeons, Washington, D. C, May 

 7-9, 1907 {American Journal of Physiology, 1907, 

 XIX., xvi-xvii). "Further Results of Trans- 

 plantation of Ovaries in Chickens," Journal of 

 Experimental Zoology, 1908, V., 563. "On Graft 

 Hybrids," presented before the American Breed- 

 ers' Association, Omaha, December, 1909. " Sur- 

 vival of Engrafted Tissues. I. (A) Ovaries and 

 (B) Testicles," Journal of Experimental Medi- 

 cine, 1910, XII., 269. 



"Magnus, "Transplantation af Ovarier med 

 Saerligt Hensyn tU Afkommet, " Norslc Magazin 

 for Laegevidenskaien, 1907 , No. 9. 



By exchanging the ovaries of fowls and breed- 

 ing the fowls, I obtained results which seem 

 to show that the transplanted ovaries pre- 

 served their reproductive function; and the 

 resulting offspring presented evidence of soma 

 or foster-mother influence. The results are 

 given in detail in my several papers. I may 

 add that since I had no allegiance with any 

 school of theorists, I was not involuntarily 

 partial in observing and recording the results. 

 Whether the results would substantiate either 

 or neither of the theories built largely upon 

 speculation as to the relationship of repro- 

 ductive tissues to their environment, or 

 whether the character of the offspring would 

 conform to Mendel's results of studies of in- 

 heritance in peas, gave me no concern. 



The primary object of the experiments was 

 to determine if an engrafted ovary might 

 retain its reproductive function. Therefore, 

 an answer to the question was obtained. And 

 incidentally information on soma influence 

 was secured. Following this, it seemed of 

 additional interest to reverse the matings of 

 the parent stock. And also, by breeding, to 

 study the character of the offspring from the 

 offspring obtained from engrafted ovaries. 

 Unfortunately before this was accomplished, 

 the experiments were terminated by an out- 

 break of disease among the fowls. But I did 

 not consider then, nor have I since come to 

 believe, that the character of the offspring of 

 the second generation could do more than 

 indicate whether or not soma influence might 

 be evident in the character of the offspring 

 of this generation, that is, the grand chicks. 

 But owing to a degree of familiarity with the 

 general principles of physiological experi- 

 mentation and interpretation, from the be- 

 ginning I saw the limitations to the absolute- 

 ness of any evidence that might be obtained 

 by continuation of such experiments. For 

 example, before drawing the provisional con- 

 clusions in the announcement of my results, 

 the statement was made that " more data must 

 be had on these points before definite conclu- 

 sions can be drawn." ' Apparently Castle has 



" Journal of Experimental Zoology, June, 1908, 

 v., p. 570. 



